Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By Cub
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1846984
Rob P wrote:
Cub wrote:
Which is a shame because the report has absolutely nothing to do with SkyEcho but more to do with how interoperability and functionality could have save several people’s lives


Absolutely, and there are few on here need a great deal of convincing of that fact.

But your enthusiastic and prolonged attempts at social media marketing on here for one proprietary system has had the negative effect you complained about in post #3.

Don't shoot the messenger.

Rob P


I think you can hardly refer to ADS-B as a proprietary system. That has always been my point. Do whatever you like with regard to reception but at least select a common protocol to make yourself conspicuous as a starting point, via the huge range of equipment and manufacturers that produce relevant kit.

I am confident you will find I have been consistent for 12 years on that point.
#1846993
Cub wrote:I think you can hardly refer to ADS-B as a proprietary system.


I wasn't

Cub wrote:That has always been my point.


No it wasn't. For a brief period you acted as a barely disclosed sales person for one proprietary system.

Cub wrote:Do whatever you like with regard to reception but at least select a common protocol to make yourself conspicuous.


I have.

Rob P
User avatar
By Cub
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1847011
Rob P wrote:
Cub wrote:
Cub wrote:That has always been my point.

No it wasn't. For a brief period you acted as a barely disclosed sales person for one proprietary system.


I hope you will find that even during the short time I worked for uAvionix that I continued to advocate ADS-B Out via whatever product or manufacturer a pilot wished. I don’t think you will find any evidence that I ever advocated a single ADS-B Out product over any other product using the same protocol.

I am delighted to see that many thousands of U.K. GA pilots have waded through the occasionally polarised debate and shared my long held believe that enabling ADS-B should be their primary goal in achieving EC.

I am equally delighted that you chose to enable ADS-B out with the rebate, via Trig’s great TN72 product and most definitely not wedded to any one product or manufacture in seeing the safety benefits of the fleet emitting via a single protocol (on dual frequencies), realised.
#1847028
Rob P wrote:May I propose an explanation based on my personal reaction?

I see a post from @Cub , which is then supported by a post from @gaznav.

"Nothing to see here, just another bit of commercial puff for SkyEcho. Let's go look at the thread on that miraculous Metroliner survival"

The danger of banging on endlessly and repetitively on the same product

Rob P


@Rob P

What a very odd comment to make. I didn’t even mention SkyEcho nor even ADS-B. My own comment was also very brief...quote...

An interesting recommendation on ForeFlight.


It was made due to this recommendation:

To ForeFlight: A-21-21
Update your traffic alerting algorithms so that traffic targets for which there is no altitude information are assumed to be at the same altitude as the ownship (that is, the aircraft receiving the target data).


That recommendation is neither for ADS-B nor SkyEcho. It is a recommendation about how ForeFlight’s collision awareness algorithm works, and what might be an improvement. That could be any EC device, connected to ForeFlight, working on the GDL90 protocol - detecting whatever signal is out there that it is designed to detect.

Some people do get a bit wound up sometimes for the wrong reasons on this forum...take a chill pill, it’s Friday! :D